One of the fun things about Deathly Hallows is that we get to meet several characters who are referenced earlier in the series. It's nice to meet Ted and Andromeda Tonks and Xenophilius Lovegood, and Aberforth is of paramount importance. But in terms of pure entertainment, I think the award has to go to Auntie Muriel, who reminds me powerfully of contrary Aunt Mary Maria in Anne of Ingleside. She's that fusty old relative you always invite to family gatherings but secretly hope doesn't show up. She has a sarcastic remark for everyone, and she's utterly lacking in tact. Her presence at the wedding is a comical blight on an otherwise wonderfully festive occasion, one of the most joyful series of pages in the whole series.
Yet for all her sniping, Muriel is also very helpful. She is willing to allow her home to be used as a safe house for members of the Order, and it is she who first casts real doubt upon the saintliness of Dumbledore's past. Rowling's narrative misdirection on the subject of Dumbledore is expansive, and it's brilliant of her to have introduced the darker aspects of his life in an article by Rita Skeeter, since, despite her interview with Harry in the fifth book, we learned not to trust from the fourth book. She's a sensationalist, and I figured she, who never liked Dumbledore much anyway, was trying to make a quick buck by writing an inflammatory book about him.
Then Auntie Muriel starts talking about him, and once I realized how uncomfortable some of her accusations make Elphias, suddenly I started to wonder if there might be something to all this Dumbledore-as-Dark-Wizard-and-Neglectful-Brother stuff. And that's a really painful revelation, one I resisted nearly as much as Harry because Rowling set Dumbledore up from the beginning as the most pure-hearted, venerable wizard of modern times. I'll admit I felt a bit betrayed; you can mislead us about Quirrel, Sirius, Mad-Eye and others, but doggone it, messing with Dumbledore - and now, after all this time - just is a bit too much. I kept making excuses for him, but there are parts of this book in which Dumbledore comes off as downright nasty.
That's not to say that everything we thought we knew about him, that he was good, wise and loving, a devoted leader, uninterested in power for himself, keen on protecting his students, was necesarily untrue, and the depth of Dumbledore's contrition in King's Cross makes it impossible not to forgive past mistakes. But the revelations cast a darker shadow upon all his activities, since we know that even during Harry's time at Hogwarts Dumbledore had a bit of a mean streak. As awful as all this is to learn, it's important that Harry uncover this information about his beloved headmaster, and Muriel is the one who sets him on that path, so whether or not he ever cares to be seated next to her again, I'd say "Cousin Barny" owes her one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hmmm...I've got to think more about this and post more later. I agree with you that what we learned about Dumbledore's character was hard to take, but in some ways it made me love him even more. Even the wise can make huge mistakes, and (as I think he once said himself) his mistakes tend to be disproportionately huger than other people's, because he does have a lot of knowledge and power. "To whom much is given, much will be required..."
I'm not sure I would agree that Dumbledore has a "mean streak" at least not by the time he's headmaster. There was a selfishness and meanness to him in his youth, but then again, Harry has some pretty hardhearted looking moments in the series himself. And I think it's understandable that someone with that much ability might find the temptation to power, especially in his youth, very tempting indeed.
But I think there's one thing we need to keep in mind. The temptation to wear the ring, the put it on -- the action that ultimately kills him (or sets him on an inevitable path to death in HBP) was NOT a temptation to power. At least not in the sense of grasping power. He momentarily forgot his purpose because he wanted to harness the power of the ring to bring back loved ones and let them know how deeply sorry he was for their deaths and for his selfishness. As he explains it to Harry, or at least as I heard it, he came to understand that even that was a sort of selfish act -- dragging dead loved ones from peace in order to assauge his own guilt. But it's such an incredibly understandable desire.
But I'm not sure I'm ready to see Dumbledore as someone who primarily manipulated or used Harry...I think there's more going on here than that (and I don't think that's quite what you're saying either, but I've wandered far afield!).
And oh yes! 107 year old Auntie Muriel was -- well, not exactly a delight, but certainly a wonderfully written character!
Oh, I definitely still love Dumbledore, and ultimately not any less than before, thought for a little while I started to wonder a bit... What he went through with his family was horrible, and I deifnitely think the bulk of his less admirable traits had dissipated by the time he defeated Grindelwald; if they hadn't, he might have tried to wield the wand himself for ignoble purposes, and he didn't do that. In fact, he repeatedly refused the position of Minister, in part because he did not want the temptation that would come with such a position.
I guess I was rather startled by how he came across in some of those Penseive scenes. Though re-reading them now, he seems much more like the "old Dumbledore" than he did on my first read-through. I think I was reading contempt and sarcasm into some places where it didn't belong, feeling as though Dumbledore really wasn't treating Snape very kindly.
It does seem that Dumbledore did use Harry a little, but all those times we saw him advising Harry, looking out for Harry, being touched and impressed by all that Harry had done in his name... I'm sure that was real. And wanting the ring... Well, it's pretty similar to the Mirror of Erised, isn't it? And Dumbledore thought he had mastered that particular temptation, to try to bring back the sister he'd loved, but the urge to see her again, and to apologize, proved too strong.
I was listening to NPR's review of the book, and it was complaining about King's Cross, saying it was just one big clunky chapter full of heavy-handed exposition. I don't think there was anything clunky about it. I think it was incredibly profound, and it allowed Harry to have his traditional end-of-the-book conference with Dumbledore, and wonderful as those always are, this one was especially moving, and odd, because to some extent Harry had become the teacher, Dumbledore the student. They were learning from each other...
Ah, that's interesting, that some people think the King's Cross scene was clunky. Like you, I think it was amazing, and profound. And it comes smack in the middle of some of the most spiritually deep themes of the book, and those themes look extremely Christian. I am betting at least some people are more uncomfortable with that than they're willing to admit.
It's interesting, hearing your take on Dumbledore in the pensieve. I didn't think he was too hard on Snape, at least not most of the time. And when he did seem a bit hard, I think it was deserved...in the sense that I think someone needed to call Snape on his behavior/attitude. Really it was Dumbledore who gave Snape his "plan of action" -- his concrete way to continue to honor Lily's memory.
I'm still holding out on whether Dumbledore "used" Harry :-) -- I think I've got a big post in me somewhere on that, if I can find the energy to write it. We'll see!
Yeah, I think you're right, Snape did kinda need somebody to keep him in line. And maybe Dumbledore never quite forgave him for betraying the Potters, which would have been understandable... I think delving so deeply into Snape's head, some of his bitterness rubbed off on me a bit. :-P
I forget if it was that review or another one that contrasted Rowling with Lewis, saying while his message was religious hers wasn't, and they seemed to be using that as a compliment. But while she's still not as overt as Lewis, I think there's an awful lot of Christianity to be found in Rowling's pages, and that's a good thing.
And about Dumbledore using Harry... Obviously there was a lot he didn't tell Snape, and judging by some of the things he said in King's Cross, perhaps Dumbledore had a strong suspicion all along that if Harry approached death willingly, he might actually survive. The more I think about that, the more at peace I am with his plan of action, because I think he was right not to want Harry to know until the very end - though it was maybe assuming too much, because what would have happened if Harry hadn't been there to snatch Snape's memory? How would he have figured out what he was supposed to do? Still, he really didn't need that burden having over his head for years, or even months. Much kinder for him not to know until he actually had to do it...
I'd be curious to know who wrote the article you mentioned. If it was Lev Grossman (who writes for TIME) he's completely sour grapes when it comes to Rowling and the Christian faith. He is convinced she's written a completely a-religious story, which is utterly ridiculous!
More on Dumbledore when I have time...loving the conversation!
Post a Comment